DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically address are rejected because they depend from a claim with indefinite language.
The term “compared to a conventional MRR” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional MRR” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Independent claims 10 and 16 include “MRR” without MRR being first defined like in claim 1, making it uncertain as to what MRR refers to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a second phase shifter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be assumed claim 14 should depend from claim 13 since claim 13 provides the basis for the first phase shifter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadot et al (US 6,411,756 B2). Sadot teaches:
1. An optical device (Fig. 13) comprising:
a first microring resonator (MRR) (56);
a first bus waveguide (53) optically coupled to the first MRR (56);
a second MRR (70) optically coupled to the first MRR (56); and
a second bus waveguide (63) optically coupled to the second MRR (70), wherein the first MRR (56) and the second MRR (70) are formed between the first bus waveguide (53) and the second bus waveguide (63) (Fig. 13).
2. The optical device of claim 1, wherein the first MRR (56) is formed between the first bus waveguide (53) and the second MRR (70), and the second MRR (70) is formed between the first MRR (56) and the second bus waveguide (63) (Fig. 13).
4. The optical device of claim 1, wherein the first bus waveguide (53) comprises a first output port (top end) and the second bus waveguide (63) comprises a second output port (top end), and wherein the first output port and the second output port are formed on a same side of the first MRR (56) and the second MRR (70) (Fig. 13) thereby reducing routing complexities in optical systems that use the optical device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al (US 2020/0280173 A1).
Sadot teaches the optical device previously discussed.
Sadot does not teach expressly further comprising an optical distributor coupled to the first bus waveguide and the second bus waveguide, wherein the optical distributor: receives an input light; generates a first light stream and a second light stream from the input light; and feeds the first light stream to the first bus waveguide and the second light stream to the second bus waveguide.
Gao teaches an optical device (102, Fig. 9), comprising an optical distributor (118) coupled to a first bus waveguide (120) and a second bus waveguide (128), wherein the optical distributor (118):
receives an input light and generates a first light stream and a second light stream from the input light (P0062); and
feeds the first light stream to the first bus waveguide (120) and the second light stream to the second bus waveguide (128) (P0062, 0095-0097).
Sadot and Gao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical devices with bus waveguides on sides of coupled ring resonators.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sadot to include a splitter coupled to the bus waveguides as taught by Gao.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for interferometry to be conducted by splitting an input signal between the two buses.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadot.
Regarding claim 5: Sadot does not state wherein the second MRR is over-coupled to the second bus waveguide resulting in a superlinear transmission region comprising superlinear phase variations near a resonant wavelength of the second MRR. This claim does not further add structure, only a recitation of how the device is used and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Sadot as previously discussed. Over-coupling the second MRR to the second bus waveguide is the way the device is used and the resulting superlinear transmission region comprising superlinear phase variations near a resonant wavelength of the second MRR is a function of the way the device is used and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Sadot.
Regarding claim 6: Sadot does not state wherein the first MRR and the second MRR are designed to achieve a same resonant wavelength to align the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR. This claim does not further add structure, only a recitation of how the device is used and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Sadot as previously discussed. The MRRs being designed to achieve a same resonant wavelength is the way the device is used and the alignment of the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR is a mix of how the device is used and a resulting function of the device and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Sadot.
Regarding claim 7: Sadot teaches further comprising a phase shifter (59) formed along one of the MRRs (56) to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the MRR (C15 L12-27). Sadot does not state the phase shifter is controlled to align the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR. This limitation does not further add structure, only a recitation of how the device is used and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Sadot as previously discussed. The phase shifter being controlled is the way the device is used and the alignment of the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR is a function of this action and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Sadot.
Regarding claim 8: Sadot does not say optical coupling between the first MRR and the second MRR and an alignment of the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR results increases linearity in an optical output signal of the optical device. The optical coupling between the first MRR and the second MRR and an alignment of the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR is a recitation of how the device is used. The increased linearity in an optical output signal of the device is a function of the use. As discussed, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Sadot as previously discussed. Also, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Sadot.
Regarding claim 9: Sadot does not say wherein increase in the linearity of the optical output signal increases bit precision of the optical device by up-to three bits compared to a conventional MRR. This is all a function of how the device is used and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Sadot.
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al (US 10,811,848 B2). Zilkie teaches:
10. A system (Fig. 1A), comprising:
a first optical device (one 110); and
a second optical device (next 110) optically coupled to the first optical device (first 100),
wherein each of the first optical device (110) and the second optical device (110) comprises (Fig. 2A):
a first MRR (220A-B);
a first bus waveguide (230A-B) optically coupled to the first MRR (220A-B) and comprising a first output port (at 230B);
a second MRR (220C-D) optically coupled to the first MRR (220A-B);
a second bus waveguide (230C-D) optically coupled to the second MRR (220C-D) and comprising a second output port (at 230C), wherein the first MRR (220A-B) and the second MRR (220C-D) are formed between the first bus waveguide (230A-B) and the second bus waveguide (230C-D) (Fig. 2A); and
an input optical coupler (130, 140, 145) coupled to the first bus waveguide (230A-B) and the second bus waveguide (230C-D) and comprising a coupler input port (at 230A or 230D);
wherein the coupler input port (230D of the second 110) of the second optical device (second 110) is connected to one of the first output port (230D of the first 110) and the second output port (230D of the second 110) to receive an optical output signal of the first optical device (first 110).
Zilkie does not teach a coherent optical neural network. The neural network limitation does not include any components or structure of a neural network and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structural limitations have been obviated as discussed above.
11. The coherent ONN of claim 10, wherein the first output port (at 230B) and the second output port (at 230C) are formed on a same side of the first MRR (220A-B) and the second MRR (220C-D) (see Fig. 2A) thereby reducing routing complexities.
Regarding claim 12: Zilkie does not state wherein the second MRR is over-coupled to the second bus waveguide resulting in a superlinear transmission region comprising superlinear phase variations near a resonant wavelength of the second MRR. This claim does not further add structure, only a recitation of how the device is used and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Zilkie as previously discussed. Over-coupling the second MRR to the second bus waveguide is the way the device is used and the resulting superlinear transmission region comprising superlinear phase variations near a resonant wavelength of the second MRR is a function of the way the device is used and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Zilkie.
Regarding claim 15: Zilkie does not say wherein a standard deviation between the optical output signal and a linear response is more than five times lower compared to a standard deviation between an output of a conventional MZI and the linear response. This is all a function of using the device and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Zilkie.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Zheng et al (US 8,467,122 B2).
Zilkie teaches the system previously discussed.
Zilkie does not teach expressly further comprising a first phase shifter formed along one or both of the first bus waveguide or the second bus waveguide to induce a predetermined phase shift in a light propagating via the first bus waveguide and the second bus waveguide causing the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR to align with superlinear transmission region of the first MRR thereby improving linearity of the optical output signal, and
further comprising: a second phase shifter formed along the first MRR to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the first MRR; and a third phase shifter formed along the second MRR to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the second MRR.
Zheng teaches an optical system (200, Fig. 2A) comprising:
a first phase shifter (126) formed along a bus waveguide (114-2), and
further comprising a second phase shifter (112-2) formed along a first MRR (120-2) to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the first MRR (120-2); and
a third phase shifter (122-1) formed along a second MRR (120-1) to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the second MRR (120-1) (C5 L53-67).
Zilkie and Zheng are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical systems with ring resonators.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Zilkie to include the phase shifters in both MRRs and a bus waveguide as taught by Zheng.
The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to tune the device to match a coupling wavelength needed (C5 L53-60).
Zilkie and Zheng do not state the phase shifter induces a predetermined phase shift in a light propagating via the first bus waveguide and the second bus waveguide causing the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR to align with superlinear transmission region of the first MRR thereby improving linearity of the optical output signal.
This is all a function of using the device and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Zilkie and Zheng.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava et al (US 2021/0405308 A1). Bhargava teaches:
16. A wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) system (2000, Fig. 20), comprising:
a first bus waveguide (2009);
a second bus waveguide (2011); and
a plurality of pairs of MRRs (three pairs of 2013 and 2017) formed between the first bus waveguide (2009) and the second bus waveguide (2011) along a length of the first bus waveguide (2009) and the second bus waveguide (2011), wherein each of the plurality of pairs of MRRs (2013, 2017) comprises:
a first MRR (2013) optically coupled to the first bus waveguide (2009); and
a second MRR (2017) optically coupled to the second bus waveguide (2011) and the first MRR (2013), wherein the first MRR (2013) is formed between the first bus waveguide (2009) and the second MRR (2017), and the second MRR (2017) is formed between the first MRR (2013) and the second bus waveguide (2011) (Fig. 20).
Bhargava does not teach an optical neural network. The neural network limitation does not include any components or structure of a neural network and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structural limitations have been obviated as discussed above.
17. The WDM ONN of claim 16, further comprising an optical distributor (2003) coupled to the first bus waveguide (2009) and the second bus waveguide (2011), wherein the optical distributor (2003):
receives an input light (at 2006);
generates a first light stream (2010) and a second light stream (2012) from the input light (at 2006); and
feeds the first light stream (2010) to the first bus waveguide (2009) and the second light stream (2012) to the second bus waveguide (2011).
Regarding claim 18: Bhargava does not state wherein the second MRR is over-coupled to the second bus waveguide resulting in a superlinear transmission region comprising superlinear phase variations near a resonant wavelength of the second MRR. This claim does not further add structure, only a recitation of how the device is used and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Bhargava as previously discussed. Over-coupling the second MRR to the second bus waveguide is the way the device is used and the resulting superlinear transmission region comprising superlinear phase variations near a resonant wavelength of the second MRR is a function of the way the device is used and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Bhargava.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sadot.
Bhargava teaches the system previously discussed.
Bhargava does not teach expressly a phase shifter formed along one or both of the first MRR or second MRR to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the first MRR or the second MRR to align a superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR thereby improving linearity of an optical output signal of the WDM ONN, and
wherein a standard deviation between the optical output signal and a linear response is more than five times lower compared to a standard deviation between an output of a conventional MRR and the linear response.
Sadot teaches a system comprising a phase shifter (59) formed along one of the MRRs (56) to control a phase angle of light propagating inside the MRR (C15 L12-27).
Bhargava and Sadot are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, resonator based optical systems.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the one of the resonators of Bhargava to include a phase shifter as taught by Sadot.
The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to tune the coupling between the bus waveguides (Sadot, C15 L12-27).
Bhargava and Sadot do not state the phase shifter is controlled to align the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR. This limitation does not further add structure, only a recitation of how the device is used and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). All of the structure has been taught by Bhargava and Sadot as previously discussed. The phase shifter being controlled is the way the device is used and the alignment of the superlinear transmission region of the second MRR with a resonant wavelength of the first MRR is a function of this action and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Bhargava and Sadot.
Regarding claim 20: Bhargava and Sadot do not say wherein a standard deviation between the optical output signal and a linear response is more than five times lower compared to a standard deviation between an output of a conventional MZI and the linear response. This is all a function of using the device and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed, all of the structural limitations have been taught by Bhargava and Sadot.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach multiple resonators between bus waveguides: US 20060159392, US 7149381, US 7421168, US 20090220228, US 7941014, US 8095010, US 8494318, US 8606055, US 9806820, US 9829767, US 9832552, US 10447409, US 20190370652, US 10714895, US 10801891, US 11002912, US 20210264241, US 11105980, US 11125946, US 11320677, US 11719963, US 11874501, US 12025862, US 12032210, US 20240378432, US 20250021809, US 12222628, US 12372718.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874